The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[TruthCalls]

It raises the thought that if the Scientific Police had not done a forensic-DNA sweep, the fake-Wiki would claim that Knox had cleaned the whole cottage!

Every so often I forget just how stupid the fake-Wiki actually is.

I'm not sure how you could actually manage to forget that, but...

I recently read what they had to say about Curatolo (I can't help myself, it's like looking at the wreckage after a bad accident - you know you don't want to see it but you look anyway). I swear Vixen must have written that section. It's the same old argument - yes, he says he saw them on the night when people were in costume boarding disco buses but despite this the courts ruled him credible. So there it is... courts say it's good, PGP agrees with it, therefore dispensing with fact, logic and reason is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Bill Williams]

Every so often I forget just how stupid the fake-Wiki actually is.

I'm not sure how you could actually manage to forget that, but...

Forgive me for I am unworthy....... and a sinner.

I recently read what they had to say about Curatolo (I can't help myself, it's like looking at the wreckage after a bad accident - you know you don't want to see it but you look anyway). I swear Vixen must have written that section. It's the same old argument - yes, he says he saw them on the night when people were in costume boarding disco buses but despite this the courts ruled him credible. So there it is... courts say it's good, PGP agrees with it, therefore dispensing with fact, logic and reason is perfectly acceptable.

Damn you, now you made me look.

The section on Curatolo was done in two sittings, in Dec 2013 and Oct 2014 by an editor nic'ed "Jarod"

The sole edit to the original Dec 2013 article was the Oct 2014 edit to incorporate Nencini's motivations report on the subject:

At Knox and Sollecito's second appeal, in 2013, Judge Nencini carefully considered the evidence given by Curatolo at the original trial and at the annulled Hellmann appeal. He devotes several pages of his [[The Nencini Sentencing Report (English)|Sentencing Report]] to transcribing parts of the testimony and discussing its merits. He echoes the Supreme Court judgment in noting that the Court must not make "a judgment of the witness’s reliability on the basis of anthropological assessments" and states that Curatolo's testimony "must be evaluated on the basis of the ordinary interpretative criteria of evaluation that the criminal Court employs in every proceeding".​

Nencini concludes:

"''Mr. Curatolo’s testimony, in conclusion, must be evaluated by this Court together with all the other circumstantial evidence that emerges and that leads us to conclude that the alibi provided by Amanda Marie Knox and affirmed by Raffaele Sollecito is an unfounded alibi.''"​

There we have it.

Consider this - Judge Massei in 2010 had written that there was no forensics supporting the notion that Knox had sloughed blood off of her hands, but Massei decided she must have anyway - why? Because the surmise that she had done that fits so well into all the other "evidence".

Yet all that other evidence had been generated the same way - no forensics to support any single item, but all the surmises added up to guilt.

I believe this to be why the Section 5 of Cassation, the Marasca-Bruno panel finallly concluded:

Now, if it goes without doubt that factual reconstruction is a task pertaining
exclusively to the fact finding judge and it is not up to the Court of Legitimacy to establish if the related decision does indeed offer the best possible reconstruction of the events, nor to approve the reasoning behind it, having this [Supreme] Court to limit itself to verify if said reasoning is compatible - according to an expression often used in jurisprudence - “with common sense and with the limits of an acceptable latitude of evaluation” (among others, Section 5, n.1004 of 30/11/1999, filed in
2000, Moro G, Rv 215745), as well as compliant with the elements of evidence,
according to the modified text of Article 606, section e) of the Italian Code of
Criminal Procedure; it is true that the reconstructive version chosen, even if
compliant with the rules of ordinary logic, must, nevertheless, agree with the facts
discovered at trial and be the result of a process of critical evaluation of the
evidence acquired according to the procedure. In other words, the use of logic and intuition cannot, in any way, compensate for the lack of evidence or the inefficiency of the investigations. Faced with missing, insufficient or contradictory evidence, the judge should simply accept it and issue a verdict of acquittal, according to Article
530, section 2 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, even if he is really convinced of the guilt of the defendant.​

Once again I'm reminded of a poster to this very thread - way way back when - who said that the problem with the way this case was handled was that:

all the evidence used against RS and AK has been judicially created​

.... not created by the actual evidence. This perhaps begins with the Rudy trial establishing the judicial fact of multiple attackers - based on no evidence whatsoever. By the time the RS/AK trials came around, even with 8 of 9 experts saying a single attacker was a distinct possibility - the courts were stuck with the non-evidence-generated judicial fact. After that, even more surmises could be wedged in, not because there had been evidence to support each additional surmise, but because each surmise "fit" the judicially created conclusions. And on and on. Like a house of cards.

So hats' off to Jarod. In two sittings Jarod has established the judicial fact (for the fake-Wiki) that Curatolo was a credible witness. Why?

Because Nencini said so.

The fake-Wiki should be retitled, "The Nencini summary-Wiki, and let's ignore anything else anyone else had said."

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm not sure how you could actually manage to forget that, but...

I recently read what they had to say about Curatolo (I can't help myself, it's like looking at the wreckage after a bad accident - you know you don't want to see it but you look anyway). I swear Vixen must have written that section. It's the same old argument - yes, he says he saw them on the night when people were in costume boarding disco buses but despite this the courts ruled him credible. So there it is... courts say it's good, PGP agrees with it, therefore dispensing with fact, logic and reason is perfectly acceptable.

Indeed.

And it raises, once again, the gigantic spectre of just HOW the Massei and Nencini courts found him a credible/reliable witness?!

And I'm afraid it also therefore raises the spectre of just how the Knox/Sollecito defence teams were not able to show these two courts convincingly just how SPECTACULARLY unreliable and lacking in credibility Curatolo was. Yes..... I know that there's an argument to say that certain courts were almost (apparently) determined to find Knox and Sollecito guilty, but I still believe that Knox and Sollecito were extremely poorly defended in certain key areas - most notably the "mixed blood/DNA" evidence, the footprint evidence, the knife and blood clasp DNA evidence, and the testimony of Curatolo and Quintavalle.

And to deal just with the "Curatolo as credible/reliable witness" issue, I still find it almost beyond belief that apparently nobody in Knox's/Sollecito's combined defence teams had a look (prior to the first Massei trial) at Curatolo's police statement, realised that there were glaring factual inconsistencies and falsehoods, and took the (easy) steps to produce the additional evidence to show to the court when it came to dealing with Curatolo in the trial.

And - as I have grown weary of pointing out - the most glaring and obvious (and easy to sort out) factual inconsistency/falsehood was around Curatolo's claims of seeing hordes of revelling students in costumes/masks in the square, and the unmarked white disco buses picking these people up, on the very night when he claims to have seen Knox and Sollecito hanging around the square all evening, which he also claims was the night of the murder (1st November 2007). Seriously, did NOBODY on the combined defence teams read this and immediately figure out that the night Curatolo was dealing with could not possibly have been the night of the murder, on account of the fact that the "hordes of student revellers in costumes/masks and disco buses" issue could ONLY refer to the previous evening Halloween, 31st October? And that was (of course) because the out-of-town clubs held big party night on the night of Halloween (where customers were invited to dress up in costumes/masks, and when the out-of-town clubs operated white buses to pick up customers from Piazza Grimana), yet not a single one of the out-of-town clubs was open on the following night - 1st November, the night of the murder - and therefore none of them was operating the white unmarked buses that night (plus, of course, there would have been no hordes of student revellers in costumes/masks on the following night of 1st November, since a) there were no Halloween parties that night, and b) that was a night when it was customary to gather as a family and commemorate dead relatives).

All it would have taken was a phone call to each of the out-of-town club owners, followed by a subpoena from each of them stating that none of their clubs was open on November 1st 2007, and none of them was therefore operating the white unmarked bus service on November 1st 2007.

And, at a stroke, that easy step would have rendered Curatolo's statement fundamentally factually inaccurate, and wholly incompatible with the night of the murder.

It seems that either a) nobody on the combined defence teams even spotted this at all, and/or b) the defence strategy in respect of Curatolo was entirely focussed on questioning his reliability/credibility on the (wholly subjective, and thus wholly arguable) matter of his status as a shambling homeless man.

Whatever the truth was about how the defence teams handled the Curatolo situation, it's a factual truth that they never presented proper, reliable evidence to either the Massei or Nencini courts (in the form of subpoenas from all the out-of-town club owners, and/or bringing some/all of these club owners in as defence witnesses at trial) that there were no white unmarked buses picking up revellers from Piazza Grimana on the night of the murder.

Unbelievable.

 

[bagels]

The reason Curatolo is a bogus witness has nothing to do with disco buses or heroin or any of that crap. It's because the night of the murder he later claims to have seen a young woman in a "serious argument" with a man and this "serious argument" featuring a young woman was so notable to him, that he remembered her and the young man months later, in a town full of young male and female students.

Yet when he was interviewed by the police 12 hours after the murder about a young woman being brutally killed, steps away from where a young woman was supposedly confronting a man in a notable suspicious "serious argument", he knew nothing. Saw nothing.

Hellmann doesn't mention this because Italy has a stupid judicial system and they aren't allowed to imply someone is just lying and making **** up. But in a serious system this would absolutely be the end of his testimony. The PGP don't care because this case has never ever been about the evidence to them.

 

[Stacyhs]

Since they never took a reference sample from Romanelli they would never know if they found a DNA sample to match her. If you don't look you don't find.

Add that to the fact that the "bloody footprints" attributed to Knox were never compared to the footprints of the other 3 girls living in that house. Think about that for a minute. Three other girls lived in that cottage and the police never bothered to compare their footprints to the luminol enhanced footprints. Why? Most likely because they assumed they were in blood so therefore could only belong to Amanda.

 

[TruthCalls]

Add that to the fact that the "bloody footprints" attributed to Knox were never compared to the footprints of the other 3 girls living in that house. Think about that for a minute. Three other girls lived in that cottage and the police never bothered to compare their footprints to the luminol enhanced footprints. Why? Most likely because they assumed they were in blood so therefore could only belong to Amanda.

They didn't take any reference prints because they had tunnel vision. The ONLY thing they were concerned with was whether the prints could be used to exclude Amanda. Once it was determined she couldn't be excluded, the prints were ipso facto, Amanda's.** But they're really only useful if they're made with Meredith's blood. Two different tests prove they weren't but that didn't dissuade a prosecutor on a mission to convict. Curatolo's testimony clearly eliminates him having seen Amanda and Raffaele in Piazza Grimana, but placing them there was to important to their theory that they simply ignored anything that said otherwise. And on it goes.

** I truly believe if Amanda could have been eliminated as having made the prints the TMB and DNA results would not have been ignored... but the prints, not fitting in with their theory, would have.

 

[Stacyhs]

They didn't take any reference prints because they had tunnel vision. The ONLY thing they were concerned with was whether the prints could be used to exclude Amanda. Once it was determined she couldn't be excluded, the prints were ipso facto, Amanda's.** But they're really only useful if they're made with Meredith's blood. Two different tests prove they weren't but that didn't dissuade a prosecutor on a mission to convict. Curatolo's testimony clearly eliminates him having seen Amanda and Raffaele in Piazza Grimana, but placing them there was to important to their theory that they simply ignored anything that said otherwise. And on it goes.

** I truly believe if Amanda could have been eliminated as having made the prints the TMB and DNA results would not have been ignored... but the prints, not fitting in with their theory, would have.

It's like the kitchen knife. It could not be excluded from one wound out of several so, ipso facto, it's the murder weapon despite no blood being found anywhere on it. And of course, it's perfectly logical that, after stabbing a girl to death with it, they'd want to put it back in their kitchen drawer and slice bread with it. Uh huh.

 

[Numbers]

Best Documentary or Nonfiction Special {Emmy Awards} Nominations:

Amanda Knox (Netflix)

A House Divided (Vice Special Report)

L.A. Burning: The Riots 25 Years Later (A&E)

13th (Netflix)

ETA: Source: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/li...on-special-emmy-nominations-list-2017-1018828
(Brought to attention by european neighbour on IIP)

 

[Numbers]

The ECHR case-law considers "judicial facts" that are not reasonably supported by evidence - arbitrary or improper reasoning - and that are used to convict a violation of the Convention. Here's an example:

Here's a recent ECHR case finding a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 6.1, because a conviction was based on arbitrary or improper reasoning in which an important defense argument was ignored by the courts. This case-law is relevant to the Italian courts convicting Amanda Knox of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba because that conviction was also based on a failure to logically and objectively refute reasonable defense arguments, although the ECHR may for simplicity examine only the issues of coercion and denial of legal representation during the interrogation.

This is the summary of the recent case:

Nikolay Genov v. Bulgaria (no. 7202/09) {13 July 2017}

The applicant, Nikolay Dimitrov Genov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Pazardzhik (Bulgaria). The case concerned his complaint that the courts had failed to consider his case fairly during criminal proceedings against him.

In 2008 Mr Genov was convicted for having acquired counterfeit US dollars. The court ruled that he had acquired the notes at some time between March 2005 (when such possession was first criminalised) and January 2007 (when the notes were found in a search of his house). However, at trial, evidence had been given suggesting that Mr Genov had acquired US dollars in 2002 (before the possession of counterfeit notes was criminalised), and also in subsequent years. Mr Genov appealed his conviction, claiming that it had never been established that he had taken possession of the counterfeit notes at a time when this had been a criminal offence. However, both of his appeals were dismissed.

Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Genov complained that the domestic courts had failed to respond to his argument that it had not been shown that he had carried out the offence at a time when it had been unlawful.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Here is an excerpt from the judgment giving more details of the ECHR reasoning:

32. However, the Court is not satisfied that the domestic courts gave a sufficiently reasoned answer to the argument at issue. Even though the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal restated in their summaries of the relevant facts what the applicant had said, namely that in 2002 his brother had given him money to buy US dollars, they did not analyse that statement or indicate whether they considered it credible. More importantly, they did not explain why and on the basis of what evidence they considered that the applicant had acquired the counterfeit bank notes much later, namely after 26 March 2005 (see paragraphs 11 and 13 above). Apart from the statements of the applicant and his brother, no evidence was collected concerning that question. It appears that the courts merely “adjusted” the time when the offence must have been committed, correcting the time initially indicated in the indictment (see paragraph 7 above), to take into account the date on which such an offence had been criminalised.

33. Nor did the Supreme Court of Cassation comment on the argument at issue, even though the applicant clearly raised it in his appeal on points of law (see paragraphs 14-15 above).

34. The Court therefore concludes that the domestic courts failed to give sufficiently reasoned judgments, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

35. There has accordingly been a violation of that provision.

 

[Bill Williams]

The NetFlix documentary is up for an Emmy:

Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Special
“Amanda Knox” (Netflix)
“The Beatles: Eight Days A Week – The Touring Years” (Hulu)
“A House Divided (Vice Special Report)” (HBO)
“L.A. Burning: The Riots 25 Years Later (A&E)
“13th” (Netflix)

 

[Bill Williams]

The NetFlix documentary is up for an Emmy:

Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Special
“Amanda Knox” (Netflix)
“The Beatles: Eight Days A Week – The Touring Years” (Hulu)
“A House Divided (Vice Special Report)” (HBO)
“L.A. Burning: The Riots 25 Years Later (A&E)
“13th” (Netflix)

Oooooops, Numbers beat me to it.

 

[Stacyhs]

You have to have unidentified DNA before having reference profiles is necessary, and you have to be taking sampling before you can generate DNA profiles, unidentified or otherwise. I find a total of five samples from Romanelli's room. One from the rock, one a hair from the window, one from the window frame and the two that were Luminol positive. Ferguson seems to make the same foolish error so often made by PGP. A lack of sampling resulting in a lack of DNA profiles does not in any way suggest DNA traces aren't present in the room. You just need to find them. Obviously the police jumped to the conclusion the room was staged and didn't bother to properly test it. Romanelli was in her room on two occasions after the police arrived so there is no doubt her DNA is in there. But why let this obvious fact get in the way of good PGP insinuation.

And before Vixen resurfaces to jump on this... there were 156 samples taken from Meredith's bedroom and an additional 24 taken from her body (that I can find, perhaps there were even more). Attempting to equate this with the five samples taken from Romanelli's room would be really, really stupid. Especially since it would be relatively easy to take minor steps to avoid leaving a forensic trace of yourself entering a room through a window, but far more difficult to do so when stabbing and sexually assaulting someone in a small room.[/QUOTE]

It would be perfectly logical and practical for Guede to have worn gloves while breaking into the cottage. Not only was it a cold night, but it would make sense to wear gloves while pulling himself up gripping the window sill and then clearing away glass. It also would make sense for him to have rummaged through Filomena's room while wearing them and then to have removed them to use the toilet which explains why he then left his DNA, fingerprints, and bloody palm print.

 

[bagels]

I think it's a fairly safe bet that this is the only time in human history where it's been discussed if a guy with a history of hopping through upper floor windows found at the scene of an upper floor window hopping did said window hopping.

In all other cases people just go "yeah he went in through that window, obviously."

Really makes u think.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think it's a fairly safe bet that this is the only time in human history where it's been discussed if a guy with a history of hopping through upper floor windows found at the scene of an upper floor window hopping did said window hopping.

In all other cases people just go "yeah he went in through that window, obviously."

Really makes u think.

But it's not the first time in human history that when shown that it was eminently possible to climb in through the window.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JL6nIkaYLs

That the response from some is conspiratorial, eg. that the video had been faked.

 

[Stacyhs]

I think it's a fairly safe bet that this is the only time in human history where it's been discussed if a guy with a history of hopping through upper floor windows found at the scene of an upper floor window hopping did said window hopping.

In all other cases people just go "yeah he went in through that window, obviously."

Really makes u think.

But, but, Bagels...the police knew right away that no one could climb in through that window! I mean, burglars never climb in through second story windows. And that guy videotaped climbing up so easily to the window and sitting on the sill... that was faked. And the police knew the break-in was faked because no glass was found under the items...um...except Filomena said there was.

And remember, there was no grill on the window below, either.
And so it goes....

 

[Numbers]

The NetFlix documentary is up for an Emmy:

Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Special
“Amanda Knox” (Netflix)
“The Beatles: Eight Days A Week – The Touring Years” (Hulu)
“A House Divided (Vice Special Report)” (HBO)
“L.A. Burning: The Riots 25 Years Later (A&E)
“13th” (Netflix)

Oooooops, Numbers beat me to it.

But your post has more information!

 

[Bill Williams]

But your post has more information!

You were showing a confirmation bias against The Beatles! Shame!

 

[Numbers]

You were showing a confirmation bias against The Beatles! Shame!

I found this info:

Documentary or Nonfiction Special
“Amanda Knox” (Netflix)
“The Beatles: Eight Days a Week – The Touring Years” (Hulu)
“A House Divided (Vice Special Report)” (HBO)
“L.A. Burning: The Riots 25 Years Later” (A&E)
“13th” (Netflix)

Source: http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/2017-emmy-nominees-list-nominations-1202494465/

The list from this source agrees fully with your information.

 

[Numbers]

The ECHR case-law considers "judicial facts" that are not reasonably supported by evidence - arbitrary or improper reasoning - and that are used to convict a violation of the Convention. Here's an example:

Here's a recent ECHR case finding a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 6.1, because a conviction was based on arbitrary or improper reasoning in which an important defense argument was ignored by the courts. This case-law is relevant to the Italian courts convicting Amanda Knox of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba because that conviction was also based on a failure to logically and objectively refute reasonable defense arguments, although the ECHR may for simplicity examine only the issues of coercion and denial of legal representation during the interrogation.

This is the summary of the recent case:

Nikolay Genov v. Bulgaria (no. 7202/09) {13 July 2017}

The applicant, Nikolay Dimitrov Genov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Pazardzhik (Bulgaria). The case concerned his complaint that the courts had failed to consider his case fairly during criminal proceedings against him.

In 2008 Mr Genov was convicted for having acquired counterfeit US dollars. The court ruled that he had acquired the notes at some time between March 2005 (when such possession was first criminalised) and January 2007 (when the notes were found in a search of his house). However, at trial, evidence had been given suggesting that Mr Genov had acquired US dollars in 2002 (before the possession of counterfeit notes was criminalised), and also in subsequent years. Mr Genov appealed his conviction, claiming that it had never been established that he had taken possession of the counterfeit notes at a time when this had been a criminal offence. However, both of his appeals were dismissed.

Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Genov complained that the domestic courts had failed to respond to his argument that it had not been shown that he had carried out the offence at a time when it had been unlawful.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Here is an excerpt from the judgment giving more details of the ECHR reasoning:

32. However, the Court is not satisfied that the domestic courts gave a sufficiently reasoned answer to the argument at issue. Even though the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal restated in their summaries of the relevant facts what the applicant had said, namely that in 2002 his brother had given him money to buy US dollars, they did not analyse that statement or indicate whether they considered it credible. More importantly, they did not explain why and on the basis of what evidence they considered that the applicant had acquired the counterfeit bank notes much later, namely after 26 March 2005 (see paragraphs 11 and 13 above). Apart from the statements of the applicant and his brother, no evidence was collected concerning that question. It appears that the courts merely “adjusted” the time when the offence must have been committed, correcting the time initially indicated in the indictment (see paragraph 7 above), to take into account the date on which such an offence had been criminalised.

33. Nor did the Supreme Court of Cassation comment on the argument at issue, even though the applicant clearly raised it in his appeal on points of law (see paragraphs 14-15 above).

34. The Court therefore concludes that the domestic courts failed to give sufficiently reasoned judgments, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

35. There has accordingly been a violation of that provision.

To emphasize that the Convention, according to the ECHR, allows a conviction only if the accused is found "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", that the burden of proof is on the prosecution for each element of a charge, and if there is any doubt the "presumption of innocence" requires an acquittal or similar dismissal for that charge, here is another excerpt from Genov v. Bulgaria:

30. Furthermore, the applicant’s argument was clearly relevant, as national law did not criminalise the mere possession of counterfeit bank notes, but only the possession of such notes in large quantities .... This not being the case, the initial criminal charge against the applicant of possession of counterfeit bank notes was subsequently dropped ... and he was indicted and brought to court for having “acquired” such notes. However, acquiring counterfeit bank notes was criminalised only on 26 March 2005, which made it crucial to show both that the applicant had acquired the counterfeit notes after this date and that he had been aware that they were counterfeit, a requirement which was in line with the presumption of innocence, which places the burden of proof of all elements of the accusation on the prosecution and requires that any doubt should benefit the accused (see, for example, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, §§ 76-77, Series A no. 146, and Melich and Beck v. the Czech Republic, no. 35450/04, § 49, 24 July 2008).

31. The national courts were therefore obliged to examine the applicant’s argument and give a reasoned answer to it. This obligation, contained implicitly in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see paragraph 27 above), was also provided for in Articles 301 and 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure {of Bulgaria}.

 

[Matthew Best]

I found this info:

Documentary or Nonfiction Special
“Amanda Knox” (Netflix)
“The Beatles: Eight Days a Week – The Touring Years” (Hulu)
“A House Divided (Vice Special Report)” (HBO)
“L.A. Burning: The Riots 25 Years Later” (A&E)
“13th” (Netflix)

Source: http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/2017-emmy-nominees-list-nominations-1202494465/

The list from this source agrees fully with your information.

I think 13th should win myself.